Elegy:demaL-demaL-yeH: Elegy: Like it or not, guns, and the right to bear arms, are both part of American culture and governance. The right for every american to own a gun is enshrined in the constitution

So far so good.Now talk about the responsibility that goes with it: The responsibility of every American to take up arms in defense of the United States is not enshrined in the Constitution. The responsibility to do so as a member of a well regulated militia, however, is, along with the Enumerated Powers of Congress to regulate the Militia.

And what part of mandatory firearms training for every middle schooler in America violates the "well regulated" provision?

None. Until Newt's Nimrods privatized the Army-run CMP, it was part and parcel of schooling./With annual refreshers.//I am old.

Actaully, to be accurate here, the Goverment settled for millions. The last thing that the goverment wanted was all of thier dirty laundry being aired on National TV. They knew exactly how bad they had screwed up.

Actaully, to be accurate here, the Goverment settled for millions. The last thing that the goverment wanted was all of thier dirty laundry being aired on National TV. They knew exactly how bad they had screwed up.

When the plaintiffs force a settlement, especially against the government, I count that as a W. Especially given that federal agents were killed in self-defense, and the Justice Department said that there was "no way" they were going to give money to people who shot federal agents.

odinsposse:It was, however, an instance where a previously legal gun was made illegal and owners were required to get rid of them.

And again, that is not the case. The previously legal gun was kept legal. The owners just had to file for registration to comply with the grandfather provisions. There were a series of extensions on the due date and the last extension was cancelled by the courts because they said enough was enough. If you owned a relevant SKS in California at the time, you could keep it if you weren't a lazy POS.

He was specifically talking about "confiscation efforts [that have] have demonstrably occurred" and used such as an example.

Dimensio:The law explicitly allows use of the state registration system to notify owners of banned firearms that they may no longer possess those firearms.

I saw. As I said, shiatty law. And, as I said, not an example of a demonstrable occurrence of confiscation efforts. You'd be better off with New Orleans as an example, recent court cases aside.

Dimensio:You are saying, then, that a federal firearm ban without a grandfather clause would not qualify as a confiscation measure, because owners could move those firearms out of the country?

You're making an assumption here. A federal firearm ban without a grandfather clause would not allow for movement of firearms out of the country by default, any more than you'd be allowed to just leave the country if they catch you with a key of coke. And that would violate ex post facto constitutional rights. And, in that context, yes, I would say that "confiscation" is kind of a key part to a "confiscation".

If you want to talk about "shiatty laws" we can talk about that instead, but you are simply shifting the goalpost. You made a claim of demonstrable occurrences of confiscation and have yet to provide one that meets your own standard of "mandating that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date." While "mandating that current owners destroy or surrender them or move them out of a city prior to that date" is certainly close, and certainly a farking horrible and questionable law, it doesn't meet your stated standard.

But sadly it doesn't really matter that you haven't provided a demonstrable occurrence of confiscation mandating that current owners of firearms destroy or surrender them prior to a specific date, because you still commit a fundamental logical fallacy. Again, (P ⇒ Q) ⇔ (non-Q ⇒ non-P).

demaL-demaL-yeH:The responsibility to do so as a member of a well regulated militia, however, is, along with the Enumerated Powers of Congress to regulate the Militia.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the 2nd ties firearm ownership to a militia, what is your reading of the 9th regarding an individual right to own a firearm?

The last thing that the goverment wanted was all of thier dirty laundry being aired on National TV. They knew exactly how bad they had screwed up.

They really did. Consider: the FBI's DAD sent out a freaking memo to the department saying that the charges against Weaver were bullshiat (his words, not mine), and he had a strong legal position. This was during the government siege.

Of course, there will always be people who suggest shooting a kid in the back and a woman in the face as she holds a baby is justified. Just look at demaL-demaL-yeH. Hey, their father or husband didn't show up to court on the date no one told him about after they changed it more than once. Time to pay with blood.

sprawl15:Assuming for the sake of argument that the 2nd ties firearm ownership to a militia, what is your reading of the 9th regarding an individual right to own a firearm?

Any claim that it is an absolute, unlimited right is plain wrong: Heller explicitly says so on page 54.As always with constitutional questions, it's wise to look at the implementing laws and at rulings on laws that specifically forbid bearing or possessing arms (mental illness, domestic abuse convictions, and felon status being chief among them).

demaL-demaL-yeH:Any claim that it is an absolute, unlimited right is plain wrong

Not what I'm asking, nor what I'm asserting.

It's a very straightforward question. Assuming for the sake of argument that the 2nd ties firearm ownership to a militia, what is your reading of the 9th regarding an individual right to own a firearm?

dletter:RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control. Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.

As opposed to just raiding all suspected "gun" houses anyway? Why would they really need a cut & dry list? There is a fine line between slippery slope and paranoia.

Supposedly the UK started out with "we're just registering them, not confiscating them" then progressed to "OK, now we're confiscating them" once they had a convenient list.

The last thing that the goverment wanted was all of thier dirty laundry being aired on National TV. They knew exactly how bad they had screwed up.

They really did. Consider: the FBI's DAD sent out a freaking memo to the department saying that the charges against Weaver were bullshiat (his words, not mine), and he had a strong legal position. This was during the government siege.

Of course, there will always be people who suggest shooting a kid in the back and a woman in the face as she holds a baby is justified. Just look at demaL-demaL-yeH. Hey, their father or husband didn't show up to court on the date no one told him about after they changed it more than once. Time to pay with blood.

That is a lie:

demaL-demaL-yeH:An FBI sniper broke the rules of engagement. He should have been tried for manslaughter, at the very least.

For more than a year, he engaged in an armed standoff while the Marshal Service tried to get him to go to court. When they approached, his family took up fighting positions. The marshals had valid warrants for his arrest, and one of them had been shot dead the day before. You don't have a right to not comply with a warrant.

sprawl15:odinsposse: It was, however, an instance where a previously legal gun was made illegal and owners were required to get rid of them.

And again, that is not the case. The previously legal gun was kept legal. The owners just had to file for registration to comply with the grandfather provisions. There were a series of extensions on the due date and the last extension was cancelled by the courts because they said enough was enough. If you owned a relevant SKS in California at the time, you could keep it if you weren't a lazy POS.

Here is the relevant law and here's the relevant portion from the summary:

The bill would require the department to notify all district attorneys of the provisions of this bill, on or before January 31, 1999, and would make it a misdemeanor or a felony for any person, firm, company, or corporation in possession of an existing SKS rifle to fail to relinquish or dispose of the rifle on or before January 1, 2000. The bill would also require the department to purchase any SKS rifle relinquished pursuant to these provisions from funds appropriated for this purpose by future legislation, and to adopt regulations, including emergency regulations, for the purchase program. By creating a new offense, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

No mention of being able to register them again. Maybe you're thinking of some later law?

No, it's not a lie. You know very little about the event we're discussing. You didn't even know the government tried to blackmail him beforehand. Your idea that his son and wife should "pay in blood" is disgusting.

sprawl15:demaL-demaL-yeH: Any claim that it is an absolute, unlimited right is plain wrong

Not what I'm asking, nor what I'm asserting.

It's a very straightforward question. Assuming for the sake of argument that the 2nd ties firearm ownership to a militia, what is your reading of the 9th regarding an individual right to own a firearm?

What the hell does the ninth have to do with anything?Congress has broad Enumerated Militia Powers, including the power to make every Swinging Richard and Whistling Wendy a lifetime member of the Milita: If they tell you that you must own a poleaxe, you must own a poleaxe. If they decree that your artillery must be secured in the local Militia armory, your artillery will be stored there.

demaL-demaL-yeH:The marshals had valid warrants for his arrest, and one of them had been shot dead the day before. You don't have a right to not comply with a warrant.

Yep, because when you have been blackmailed, court date changed without your nofication and one of you kids and dog killed by the feds, complying with a warrent is exactly the highest priority you should have. Are you starting to get it yet that maybe Weaver did not trust these folks too much?

No, it's not a lie. You know very little about the event we're discussing. You didn't even know the government tried to blackmail him beforehand. Your idea that his son and wife should "pay in blood" is disgusting.

You are a bad person, and should feel bad.

The lie was about me. You didn't just distort or misrepresent what I wrote, you deliberately, and with malice aforethought, flat-out lied.

Skeptos:It's hilarious to see gun fetishists pretending that they're the last line of defense between us and a tyrannical federal government. As if a bunch of fat middle-aged guys with AR-15s would be able to take on a Marine Air-Ground Task Force.

Any one who thinks this is how it would go down is just plain stupid. No one can go toe to toe with the US military. Ideally, it would be death by a thousand cuts. They have been having lots of fun gathering experience fighting insurgencies in a couple of relatively small countries lately, though. Either way, there is no way you would be able to effectively occupy the entire USA under marshall law without vast tracts of unpoliced areas.

HeadLever:demaL-demaL-yeH: The marshals had valid warrants for his arrest, and one of them had been shot dead the day before. You don't have a right to not comply with a warrant.

Yep, because when you have been blackmailed, court date changed without your nofication and one of you kids and dog killed by the feds, complying with a warrent is exactly the highest priority you should have. Are you starting to get it yet that maybe Weaver did not trust these folks too much?

More than a year. He was given more than a year to comply with the warrant and surrender to federal marshals so he could have his day in court. Instead, when the marshals showed up with a valid warrant, he sent his family to occupy fighting positions. He did not lawyer up. He did not ever respond to the attorney who was appointed to defend him. He did not go to court to face his accusers.

For a third time, the FBI sniper effed up.

I personally find the new habit of cops playing dress-up pretend soldier and acting like thugs both disgusting and stupid. A cop walking up to the door dressed like a cop and telling him "This warrant says I have to take you in front of the judge. I'll notify your lawyer so you'll have representation. Let's go and try to clear this up quickly." is far more effective and far less likely to end in violence.

Zeno-25:Any one who thinks this is how it would go down is just plain stupid. No one can go toe to toe with the US military. Ideally, it would be death by a thousand cuts. They have been having lots of fun gathering experience fighting insurgencies in a couple of relatively small countries lately, though. Either way, there is no way you would be able to effectively occupy the entire USA under marshall law without vast tracts of unpoliced areas.

And don't forget the fact that if the country does go off the rails, you would likely have a split millitary as well.

HeadLever:Zeno-25: Any one who thinks this is how it would go down is just plain stupid. No one can go toe to toe with the US military. Ideally, it would be death by a thousand cuts. They have been having lots of fun gathering experience fighting insurgencies in a couple of relatively small countries lately, though. Either way, there is no way you would be able to effectively occupy the entire USA under marshall law without vast tracts of unpoliced areas.

And don't forget the fact that if the country does go off the rails, you would likely have a split millitary as well.

The really farked up part, demaL-demaL-yeH, is that you're arguing on behalf on the government years after they all but admitted they were wrong by settling. With the information that came out since (see the FBI memo, mentioned above), why would you continue doing so?

It was wrong to kill Sam and Vicki Weaver. Stop defending it. The majority of the agents there thought the RoE you're saying Horiuchi merely "violated" were bullshiat to begin with.

I honestly think if you learned about the incident instead of trying to blindly defend yourself, you'd eventually...to yourself, not to me...admit you were wrong.

Zeno-25:Skeptos: It's hilarious to see gun fetishists pretending that they're the last line of defense between us and a tyrannical federal government. As if a bunch of fat middle-aged guys with AR-15s would be able to take on a Marine Air-Ground Task Force.

Any one who thinks this is how it would go down is just plain stupid. No one can go toe to toe with the US military. Ideally, it would be death by a thousand cuts. They have been having lots of fun gathering experience fighting insurgencies in a couple of relatively small countries lately, though. Either way, there is no way you would be able to effectively occupy the entire USA under marshall law without vast tracts of unpoliced areas.

Then presumably it would make little difference if the "insurgents" only had shotguns and hunting rifles.

HeadLever:demaL-demaL-yeH: Then why did he go on trial for manslaughter?

He didn't, moron. Lon was indicted, but the case was dropped.

Fair enough. He should have gone on trial.Now let's get the fark out of this ridiculous Ruby Ridge threadjack.

Taking up arms against the United States is treason. (Article III, Section 3, Constitution of the United States of America.)You keep talking about the coming civil war and how the plucky rebels will win against the federal government in a way that tells everybody reading your comments that you consider yourself one of the plucky rebels taking up arms against the United States. You are also, judging by your comments, a strong advocate of sowing dissension among the ranks. So pick up a mirror and look at the shiny side: That monkey there is a traitor, in word, if not yet in deed.

Trail of Dead:dletter: RedPhoenix122: dletter: So, I have to ask... what are gun owners concerns about just having to be trained to own a gun... I assume it is because they fear that the bar would be set so high to become "defacto" gun control. Because, just looking at it from a standpoint of safety, it seems like why wouldn't you want everyone who owns a gun to be capable of using it in a proper manner?

Because if they do that, then the government has a list of people who own guns, and now they can go to those houses and take them whenever they want.

As opposed to just raiding all suspected "gun" houses anyway? Why would they really need a cut & dry list? There is a fine line between slippery slope and paranoia.

You need to rewatch Red Dawn.

Now THERE'S a movie with a BAFFLING message/tone. I'd call it even-handed, but it swings SO hard that it comes off more are fractured.

odinsposse:No mention of being able to register them again. Maybe you're thinking of some later law?

The thing you're citing is the later law. The assault weapons ban was in...89, if I remember right. It banned specifically any SKS models that accepted a detachable magazine, but allowed grandfathering as long as you registered them with the state. Other models of SKS did not have a detachable magazine and those weren't considered assault weapons. However, there were both kits made/sold to allow conversion to a detachable magazine after the fact and in '92 the Cali AG decided to allow the sale of certain Norinco SKS Sporter models that had detachable mags.

The dissonance between what the law actually said and what the AG allowed to occur caused all kinds of issues, including arrests of people who didn't have a detachable magazine on their weapon. That went up to the courts, who said the AG was a farking idiot and shouldn't have let that happen and that all of those guns were assault weapons. This was followed by a series of amnesty periods where one could register their firearms after the fact (covering them under § 12285), which also were put to an end by the courts. Then there was this law that you linked which gave blanket temporary amnesty and something like double or triple the money back (seriously, they were like $100 guns and the buyback was for $230) to those who purchased specifically the Chinese SKS models in the window that the Cali AG dipshiat decided to illegally allow to be sold. People could also keep their weapons even at this point by modifying them back, adding a bullet button, etc., in ways that made the weapon no longer have a functional detachable magazine. That's why the law you linked specifically states:

an "SKS rifle" under this section means all SKS rifles commonly referred to as "SKS Sporter" versions, manufactured to accept a detachable AK-47 magazine and imported into this state and sold by a licensed gun dealer, or otherwise lawfully possessed in this state by a resident of this state who is not a licensed gun dealer, between January 1, 1992, and December 19, 1997.

It changes the nature of your assumptions. A proper reading of the 9th would make you ask "what the hell does the language of the 2nd have to do with anything?" If the 2nd is strictly read to only mean that you're allowed to carry arms while in an official state militia, that doesn't deny or disparage the individual right to bear arms.

That's the problem with the bill of rights. If the 1st Amendment was repealed, right now, you would still have a right to free speech that must be protected by the government, because the existence of the amendment is irrelevant.

demaL-demaL-yeH:You are also, judging by your comments, a strong advocate of sowing dissension among the ranks.

No. We are simply stating a fact: if a hypothetical second Civil War were to occur, the military would likely be split between those willing to support the government and those willing to support the rebels, just like the last time it happened and just like every single other civil war in history. A civil war isn't an isolated event, it means a country divided against itself. The military isn't exempt from that.

/And per your Grant and Sherman comment: The Federal Army was mostly militia then, too. Or did you forget about when Lincoln called up the first wave of 75,000 militia volunteers in 1861? Or just how small the regular Army was before the Civil War?

demaL-demaL-yeH:dittybopper: He was found "Not Guilty" by a jury of his peers under the original indictment, making an illegal firearm (to whit, a sawed-off shotgun). That lends credence to his story that the guns he sold to the ATF informant were legal when he sold them, and subsequently shortened by the ATF.

Which made him no less a belligerent fugitive who was in an armed standoff with the US Marshall Service for more than a year. He could have had his day in court and found not guilty much earlier - no fighting positions or armed standoff necessary - and his family would not have paid in blood for his disregard of the law.

Ah, but he had reason to not trust the system. He didn't think he'd get a fair shake, if they were setting him up like that. He moved to that area to get away from that sort of thing, and it came to him.

And it doesn't help that they gave him the wrong information about his court date, telling him in a letter that it was a month after the actual date, and then deciding not to wait until that date to see if he showed up before going after him.

sprawl15:And, as I said, not an example of a demonstrable occurrence of confiscation efforts.

It is, however, a demonstration of a law prohibiting current owners of existing firearms from keeping those firearms after the effective date of the law despite the "ex post facto" prohibition clause in the United States Constitution, as I stated and as you disputed.

Dimensio:a demonstration of a law prohibiting current owners of existing firearms from keeping those firearms after the effective date of the law

It does no such thing, unless you are suggesting that the definition of "keep" does not include ownership of property outside of your current city limits. And, again:

sprawl15:You're making an assumption here. A federal firearm ban without a grandfather clause would not allow for movement of firearms out of the country by default, any more than you'd be allowed to just leave the country if they catch you with a key of coke. And that would violate ex post facto constitutional rights. And, in that context, yes, I would say that "confiscation" is kind of a key part to a "confiscation".

If you want to talk about "shiatty laws" we can talk about that instead, but you are simply shifting the goalpost. You made a claim of demonstrable occurrences of confiscation and have yet to provide one that meets your own standard of "mandating that current owners destroy or surrender them prior to that date." While "mandating that current owners destroy or surrender them or move them out of a city prior to that date" is certainly close, and certainly a farking horrible and questionable law, it doesn't meet your stated standard.

But sadly it doesn't really matter that you haven't provided a demonstrable occurrence of confiscation mandating that current owners of firearms destroy or surrender them prior to a specific date, because you still commit a fundamental logical fallacy. Again, (P ⇒ Q) ⇔ (non-Q ⇒ non-P).

If you want to move the goalposts now, that's fine. Just be clear that's what you're doing and be clear about where you're moving them to and be clear that you're acknowledging your initial complaints are based on false assumptions and arguments.

Specifically, be clear that a door-to-door confiscation effort driven by a central list of all gun owners and the types of gun they own is not, in fact, plausible due (in addition to the reasons listed that you did not address) to the lack of any demonstrable occurrence of confiscation mandating that current owners of firearms destroy or surrender them prior to a specific date.

Among my ancestors were two militia members (father and son) who were murdered by a group of Tories who took them prisoner.Also among my ancestors were men who fought for the Confederacy.They willingly paid the price of treason.

Also among my ancestors are men who fought to preserve the United States and succeeded.For my part, and for the sake of my family and the constitutional rule of law, I would take up arms again to defend the United States.

Nothing the neocon(federate)s are saying would induce me to take their side:Like the South in 1860, their cause is corrupt;their motives are greed and power;their goals - the institution of a corporatist theocracy, the enslavement of women to fetuses, the economic enslavement of workers, making our children ignorant, the denial and curtailment of basic human rights, and the destruction of our government and undoing of its every positive, decent accomplishment;and their methods attack the very structure of civil society and divide us.

They are the embodiment of all that is ignoble, brutish and selfish in our culture.

The point: If you take up arms against the United States while I am still capable of bearing arms, I will take up arms against you.

Oh yeah, Rube-y Ridge. The rare occurrence we should be basing policy on as opposed to those rare mass shootings we shouldn't be basing policy on.

What do you imagine you're trying to say, here? The only policy anyone wants out of Ruby Ridge is "hey, maybe government officials shouldn't be abusive dicks." Guess what? Most government officials who opined on the matter agree.

demaL-demaL-yeH:For my part, and for the sake of my family and the constitutional rule of law, I would take up arms again to defend the United States.

Your error is in assuming that defending the US is for the sake of the constitutional rule of law. If your assumption is correct, no one would have a problem with that. If your assumption is not correct and the US has run off the rails, so to speak, then you are going to find some folks that will have a problem.

Again, if the US Goverment is not going to live by the Consitutuion, why should anyone else?

HeadLever:But what happens when the country no longer adhers to the consitution, a.k.a going off the rails? If they no longer go by the constitution, why should we?

What are the first seven words of the Constitution?Have you been disenfranchised, or do you also get to vote when the asshole next door votes?And who is this "we", if not all of your fellow citizens, no matter their melanin, religion, plumbing, etc.?

Among my ancestors were two militia members (father and son) who were murdered by a group of Tories who took them prisoner.Also among my ancestors were men who fought for the Confederacy.They willingly paid the price of treason.

Also among my ancestors are men who fought to preserve the United States and succeeded.

Uh, ok. My family came here a long time after that. We're not so much emotionally invested. To us, oppression = bad, regardless of the flag flying overhead.

For my part, and for the sake of my family and the constitutional rule of law, I would take up arms again to defend the United States.

You keep skipping over questions of that constitutional rule of law, saying you'd defend the ruling powers regardless.

Nothing the neocon(federate)s are saying would induce me to take their side:

Do you honestly believe the situation is established government vs. neo-cons? This seems like a fantasy to me. Neo-cons ran the government some very few years ago. Their policies are still being carried out in many ways.

Like the South in 1860, their cause is corrupt;their motives are greed and power;their goals - the institution of a corporatist theocracy, the enslavement of women to fetuses, the economic enslavement of workers, making our children ignorant, the denial and curtailment of basic human rights, and the destruction of our government and undoing of its every positive, decent accomplishment;and their methods attack the very structure of civil society and divide us.

That's an interesting view, but do you honestly feel that anyone who might oppose the American government is of these convictions? It's very cartoonish.

The point: If you take up arms against the United States while I am still capable of bearing arms, I will take up arms against you.